Wakilii

Rose Muwangala suing through her lawful attorney Muwangala Aggrey v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Miscellaneous Application 66 of 2023) [2

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application arising from Civil Suit No. 76 of 2010 seeking to compel the Executive Secretary of a co-defendant to enter appearance and testify
Decision
Application dismissed as misconceived

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

A co-defendant has no procedural right to compel another defendant to enter appearance in a suit. The duty to ensure defendants enter appearance lies with the plaintiff, who may apply for default judgment or to proceed ex parte. A defendant who has not entered appearance has not submitted to the court's jurisdiction and cannot be compelled to testify as a witness. The application was misconceived and dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed as misconceived

Facts

Rose Muwangala, the first defendant in Civil Suit No. 76 of 2010, filed an ex parte application seeking to compel the Executive Secretary of the third defendant (Departed Asians Property Custodian Board) to enter appearance and testify. The applicant alleged that despite multiple witness summons being served since 2010, the Executive Secretary had failed to appear. The applicant contended that the Executive Secretary's testimony was crucial to identify documents signed by him that were exhibits in the main suit, and that without his testimony these documents might be expunged from the record, causing injustice.

Issues

  1. Whether a co-defendant can bring an application to compel another defendant to enter appearance in a suit where both are sued?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs shall abide in the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appearance — Co-defendant's Standing to Compel Another Defendant to Enter Appearance
A co-defendant has no procedural right or obligation to compel another defendant to enter appearance in a suit where both are sued.
Civil Procedure — Appearance — Duty to Ensure Defendants Enter Appearance
The duty to ensure all defendants are properly served with summons and have entered appearance falls upon the plaintiff, not co-defendants. If a defendant fails to appear, the plaintiff may apply to proceed ex parte or seek judgment in default of appearance under Order 9 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Witnesses — Witness Summons and Submission to Jurisdiction
A defendant who has not entered appearance and submitted to the court's jurisdiction cannot be treated as a witness or compelled to testify. Non-appearance means that party has not submitted to the court's jurisdiction and is technically in default.

Legislation cited (11)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Rose Muwangala suing through her lawful attorney Muwangala Aggrey v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Miscellaneous Application 66 of 2023) [2
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.